1 1 2 -----------------------------------------x 3 COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH EXCELLENCE 4 MEETING OF BOARD MEMBERS 5 -----------------------------------------x 6 June 26, 2008 7 1:00 p.m. 8 9 Millennium Broadway Hotel 10 New York, New York 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 REGENCY REPORTING, INC. 22 Certified Court Reporters & Videographers 23 425 Eagle Rock Avenue 575 Madison Avenue 24 Roseland, NJ 07068 New York, NY 10022 25 www.regencyreporting.net 1-866-268-7866 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 3 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: RICHARD ZACKON, Facilitator 4 MIKE HESS, Vice chair MARK KALINE 5 GEORGE IVIE MICHELE BUSLIK 6 NANCY GALLAGHER PAUL DONATO 7 MARK GREEN JEAN GOLDBERG 8 SHARI ANNE BRILL JACK WAKSHLAG 9 COLLEEN FAHEY RUSH IRA SUSSMAN 10 CERIL SHAGRIN DAVID POLTRACK 11 LYLE SCHWARTZ HENRY DeVAULT 12 MELVA BENOIT PRESENT BY PHONE: 13 JESSICA PANTANINI SUSAN CUCCINELLO 14 VICKY CHAMPLIN PAT LIGUORI 15 JONATHAN SIMMS RICK KIELTY 16 STEVE STERNBERG JOANNE BURNS 17 18 ALSO PRESENT: 19 ANNE SAINI 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 MR. ZACKON: This is Richard. On 2 the phone, I believe, and if I miss anyone, 3 let me know. We have Vicky Champlin. We 4 have Susan Cuccinello. We have Rick Kielty. 5 We have Jonathan Sims and Steve Sternberg. 6 Did I capture the phone? I did. Okay. 7 As a way of beginning just to 8 prepare ourselves, what I thought we might 9 do, since a lot of us this week have been 10 living at the Millennium in the area, 11 especially conferences, whoever has been here 12 might just say what the last couple of days 13 may have provided as possible insight for our 14 efforts here. Because we focused on audience 15 measurement concepts as an industry group 16 there and here with the Council For Research 17 Excellence. And I would just like to hear 18 what anyone might have to say for the benefit 19 of the people who weren't there as to what 20 they caught for a couple of days at ARF for 21 measurement and how it might affect our work 22 here. So anyone want to address that? Hi, 23 Melva. 24 MS. BENOIT: Hello. 25 MS. SHAGRIN: Well, I actually 4 1 wrote up the background for why I want to do 2 what I want to do based on comments made in 3 the two days in terms of the importance of 4 measuring across media. 5 MR. ZACKON: Actually informed 6 one of the committees you're looking to serve 7 on. 8 MS. SHAGRIN: It happened me to 9 explain the importance. 10 MR. KALINE: I think a lot of the 11 things that were discussed, particularly 12 yesterday, validated the study we already 13 have in the field with Ball State and the 14 fact that that's of interest to researchers 15 and marketers alike. And, you know, will be 16 eagerly awaited by the marketplace once we 17 are able to release those findings, which I 18 understand are coming out. 19 MR. ZACKON: We finished Tuesday. 20 MR. KALINE: Yes, I think so. 21 MR. ZACKON: Other attendees at 22 the conference got something to say? 23 MR. DONATO: Only that I agree 24 with Ceril. I think cross-video platforms is 25 really the hot issue. And, you know, how 5 1 these various databases are put together is 2 really going to be an important issue for the 3 industry. 4 You know, as a company, we 5 obviously are going to be doing our own work. 6 But the mission of the Council is for the 7 client community to be able to execute 8 research of its own decision in that area. 9 MR. ZACKON: Anyone on the phone 10 want to chime in? Okay. 11 Mark, take it away. 12 MR. KALINE: Well, I guess 13 formally, welcome everybody. Sorry about 14 that on the phone. Welcome everybody. And I 15 want to echo, first of all, I want to say 16 thank you to everybody for making so much of 17 your day available for us today after having 18 much time out of the office for a lot of you 19 at the ARF and other responsibilities. So I 20 appreciate the attendance, both in person and 21 on the phone. 22 We have a full agenda, including 23 a new slate of potential members that Michael 24 will address in a minute which is pretty 25 exciting. So with that I think I'll just 6 1 quickly turn it over to Mike and we'll get 2 going. 3 MR. HESS: Okay. Thanks a lot. 4 I'm speaking right into the mic. I assume 5 everybody on the telephone can hear me okay. 6 If not, let me know. I'll speak up. 7 We do have a number of exciting 8 and not so exciting items to discuss. Mainly 9 exciting. 10 Let me just start with one of the 11 big positives is that, Jessica, I hope you 12 don't mind if I pick on you first, Jessica 13 Pantanini has volunteered to chair the 14 communications committee. And you will 15 recall at the last meeting we were, I don't 16 want to say desperately, but we were looking 17 for a chair. And now we have one. 18 MR. ZACKON: Eagerly. 19 MR. HESS: Jessica, any comments 20 as to why you accepted and so on? 21 MS. PANTANINI: I think at the 22 end of the day of all of the work that the 23 individuals in the Council have been doing is 24 important work. And I think it's vitally 25 important that we let everyone know what the 7 1 results are of our work. Because I think 2 there are a lot of questions in people's 3 minds as to, it's been a few years now, 4 what's going on. So I think it's an 5 important role. And I'm happy to fulfill it. 6 MR. HESS: That's great. And 7 Jessica, are you looking for any volunteers 8 to join your committee. 9 MS. PANTANINI: I'm always 10 looking for volunteers. 11 I also want to have a good idea 12 of whether or not these persons from Nielsen 13 will be made from a PR perspective that we 14 can tap into? 15 MR. DONATO: Good, sure. We have 16 a new CMO, John Burbank. And, actually, 17 Richard mentioned this morning, we should 18 probably have him connected with this group. 19 Perhaps come to the next meeting so he can 20 deal with it. 21 MR. ZACKON: Also, one of the 22 resources is in the corner. I don't know if 23 you know Anne. 24 MR. HESS: Have we formally 25 introduced her? 8 1 MR. ZACKON: She was at the last 2 meeting. 3 MR. HESS: I know Anne's been 4 great to work with in the last few weeks. 5 MR. DONATO: And you're in John's 6 organization. 7 MS. SAINI: Yes. I can also be 8 involved. 9 MR. HESS: Thanks for all your 10 efforts. 11 I guess on the congressional 12 authority side, but sad from the CRE 13 perspective, I have two announcements. Done 14 Gloeckler said that he's moving to a new 15 assignment within P&G that will take him out 16 of the media assignment. And that there will 17 be a new person on the media side who will be 18 replacing Don. And that person has not been 19 named yet. 20 So, consequently, one, Don is not 21 joining us at today's meeting; and two, we 22 will have the recommended person for Don's 23 replacement, if you want to call it a primary 24 slot, but we assume that we'll get a name. 25 And then we'll be able to speak to that 9 1 person separately from today's slate. We do 2 not have that person yet. 3 I do want to say that Don sent 4 Mark and me, and I think Richard, a real nice 5 note that I might as well share the spirit 6 of. I'm not going to read all of it. But 7 the spirit of it is that Don loved working on 8 the CRE. He thought that there was some of, 9 here's a direct quote, some of the sharpest, 10 most committed people he's ever worked with 11 in the industry on the CRE. And 12 consequently, he will miss serving on the CRE 13 in the future. 14 And so I'd like to just kind of 15 put in for the record, we thank Don for his 16 service. So he made some nice comments about 17 us. Certainly Don himself is a hard worker. 18 He tried to, even though he's in Cincinnati, 19 I think he came in person to most of the 20 meetings. And served on committees and did a 21 great job. So thank you, Don, for the 22 record. 23 And then we also just got a note 24 the other day, or Richard did, that he passed 25 on. Jean Goldberg is retired. And so we 10 1 congratulate her on that move. And, in turn, 2 of course she indicated she'll be stepping 3 down from the committee. The reason I say of 4 course is because separately we do have -- 5 what did we call it Richard -- a Tim Brooks 6 rule that says that people who are on the 7 committee and go emeritus can serve, be on a 8 committee of the CRE, while not necessarily 9 staying on the CRE. So they can step down 10 from the CRE but still serve on committees. 11 That's going to be enshrined as the Tim 12 Brooks rule. So anybody who does retire, 13 steps down, can do that. 14 Jean did not indicate that. She 15 just informed us of her retirement. So 16 congratulations to those two on their 17 significant personal moves. 18 Next, I am actually happy to say 19 that we have an entire slate. That took a 20 while. And there's a lot of blocking and 21 tackling here that I won't bore you with. 22 But, you know, when it comes right down to 23 it, it takes all of you who sent me E-mails, 24 names and addresses. Thank you for that. I 25 know we all have day jobs. So sometimes they 11 1 trickled in. Sometimes they showed up within 2 five minutes of the phone call of my begging 3 for an E-mail. So they came faster and 4 slower, but I think the net is that, if you 5 recall, we said at a recent steering 6 committee, actually two meetings ago, we said 7 that the way we were going to for new members 8 is that names would be submitted to the CRE. 9 And that we wanted bios and statements of 10 intent on how the candidates were planning to 11 actually serve on the committee. And that 12 they would contribute to the committee. 13 Those names were submitted 14 through me to the entire steering committee. 15 One or two names did come in late. And so I 16 sent those out to the steering committee a 17 couple of days ago. And we now have 13 18 names, all of which we recommend 19 simultaneously for a thumbs up vote. In a 20 few moments we will either accept all or 21 reject all. And we can have a discussion, 22 but this is not a line item by line item 23 vote. The steering committee recommends that 24 this slate be adopted. 25 Let's just go kind of go over the 12 1 names so that we can get them into the record 2 in a formal way. 3 Brad Adgate at Horizon Media. 4 Alex Corteselli at Telerep. 5 Laura Cowan who works for Rick 6 Johnson and Company and has an agency in New 7 Mexico. One of her statements of intent was 8 that even though she's in New Mexico, she 9 actually does plan to attend most of the 10 meetings live in New York, as well as serve 11 on the committee. 12 Billy McDowell, Raycommedia. I 13 hope I spelled that right. 14 Dan Murphy, Univision. One or 15 two people asked me, hey, how come we have a 16 couple of Univisions. I'm sure with no 17 slight intended for Ceril with that question. 18 Why do we have the two Univisions. And the 19 answer is that at a couple of meetings ago we 20 said we need mobile, we need online, we need 21 Internet. And so Dan Murphy will actually 22 represent Internet, the online part of it. 23 Mile Nathanson from Bernstein. 24 Mike Pardee, Scripps. 25 I do want to say for the next 13 1 one, Sarah Patterson at Burrell, an 2 African-American agency in Chicago. She sent 3 the bio. She expressed strong interest. So 4 I wanted to add her to the slate. That would 5 be great. She did say that she needs 6 approval from her bosses to serve. And so 7 because of the timing, the way the timing 8 worked out, she's on vacation now. I decided 9 it would just be prudent to put her on the 10 slate now. And the steering committee 11 approved it. And when she returns we will 12 then, assuming that we get a yes vote for the 13 entire slate, then we will hear from her. I 14 got a sense that the percentage is pretty 15 high that she could serve. So, anyway, 16 there's a chance she might not. 17 Matt Ross from Hearst. 18 Tina Silvestri, from NBC is on 19 this list. Kind of followed the formal 20 procedure. But her name is recommended as 21 the replacement for Alan Wurtzel who 22 generally could not attend our meetings. So 23 he recommended Tina to substitute for him or 24 to formally replace him. 25 On the manufacturers side or 14 1 advertisers side, Noreen Simmons of Unilever. 2 Very enthusiastic about joining the 3 committee. 4 So is Barbara Singer from Kraft. 5 And Beth Uyenco, who I know many 6 you of you know was at OMB up until a few 7 years ago. And with Microsoft as a global 8 researcher now. 9 Again, it took a while. Thank 10 you. There are several people not on the 11 steering committee who provided names. Many 12 of you in this room provided names for 13 steering committee review. I think we have a 14 fantastic slate. 15 In terms of the numbers, Richard 16 informed me that, I think, technically, if I 17 do the math right, we were at 27. We were 18 going to add 13 to bring us to the full 19 complement of 40. With the two people who 20 are pulling off for now, Don and Jean, that 21 would bring us to 25. And 13 brings us to 22 38. So we're well within our scope of 40. 23 Is there any discussion about 24 these names? Again, the steering committee 25 pursuant to the last discussion, this is not 15 1 a line item by line item vote. We said we 2 would recommend an entire slate and we've 3 done that. 4 MR. GREEN: Mike, do you want to 5 mention that Don indicated that he was going 6 to recommend somebody from Procter follow in 7 his footsteps? 8 MR. HESS: Yes. Don said he 9 would do that. I think when I first got the 10 letter I thought the name was closer than it 11 was. And the letter I got from him yesterday 12 was kind of reminding me. Mike, I'm sure 13 you'll say something nice. He said that the 14 name has not actually been announced yet. So 15 I believe that when the name is announced, 16 then Don will recommend that that person be 17 on the committee. 18 And I think procedurally what we 19 can do then is let's say that that happens 20 July 1st or in next couple of weeks, what I 21 would say then is we'll bounce that name 22 around. We'll review the name with the 23 steering committee. And then we'll send it 24 out to, let's say, for a midsummer vote just 25 online, I think, just by E-mail, if it's 16 1 delayed until September. 2 Part of the goal here, by the 3 way, also is that if we vote this group in 4 today, then we would really welcome the 5 opportunity to have them join us at the 6 September meeting. 7 So, any further discussion on the 8 names? 9 Again, thank you for everybody's 10 help. I think it's a terrific group. 11 MR. IVIE: I have a question. 12 MR. HESS: We are still light on 13 and I think we were able to achieve a lot of 14 our objectives, including diversity, 15 Internet. I think we're still light, 16 Richard, on mobile. 17 MR. ZACKON: Mobile. And do we 18 have a gaming? 19 MR. HESS: I'm not sure we have a 20 gaming. 21 MR. ZACKON: Word of mouth. 22 MR. IVIE: What about Beth? She 23 works with a very, very significant division 24 of her company attending gaming. 25 MR. HESS: Maybe Beth can cover 17 1 some of them. 2 MS. SHAGRIN: Anne's responsible 3 for mobile as well as Internet. 4 MR. HESS: Who is responsible for 5 mobile? 6 MR. IVIE: Can I ask a question 7 specifically related to Dan. Not a personal 8 question by any means. I know Dan. The guy 9 really gets my highest recommendation. He is 10 awesome. I tell you that. 11 But are there any little details 12 that we need to think about, voting or 13 anything, related to having two Univision 14 representatives, or is there anything there? 15 Because I live in this world of voting in my 16 mind. 17 MR. ZACKON: Initially, there 18 were the slots for Disney-ABC. There were 19 two slots for NBC-Universal. We still have 20 Nancy and we'll have Tina. We'll have Pat 21 and we have Henry. And Dave tore his company 22 in half. So we had CNN. And so we still 23 have those positions. 24 MS. SHAGRIN: Just a reminder, we 25 have three networks and two station groups. 18 1 So it's not as if it's a single Nielsen 2 client. It's five clients. 3 MS. BRILL: I have a question. 4 Is there anybody -- 5 MR. HESS: Dave has a question. 6 David Poltrack. 7 MR. POLTRACK: Michael Nathanson 8 is a Wall Street analyst, right? I'm just 9 interested. What was the thinking behind 10 putting a Wall Street analyst on this 11 committee? 12 MR. HESS: Well, it started with 13 Jack Wakshlag actually recommending him. 14 Saying he will be a good person. He is a 15 Nielsen client. I thought it would give an 16 additional perspective to this that could be 17 interesting. 18 Any other thoughts? I think we 19 discussed his name briefly during the 20 steering committee meeting on the slate. 21 MR. GREEN: I think part of the 22 discussion about his name and Beth Uyenco's 23 name is the idea of getting a varied group of 24 advertisers. And so I think that that was 25 part of the discussions as well. 19 1 MR. HESS: Well, for Beth, for 2 sure. 3 MR. ZACKON: Is he considered an 4 advertiser? 5 MR. HESS: No. 6 MR. POLTRACK: Well, I'm all for 7 educating him. Because he's probably the 8 most misguided analyst in the entire 9 business. So maybe we can enlighten him. 10 MR. DONATO: It will be 11 interesting to see what he thinks. 12 MR. HESS: He also seemed 13 genuinely enthusiastic to play that role as 14 well. 15 Shari, you had a comment. 16 MS. BRILL: I just was wondering 17 in light of Don's departure from P&G, not 18 departure from P&G, departure from the 19 committee, is anybody else replacing him from 20 P&G, or does it work like that? 21 MR. HESS: I thought that I 22 covered that. 23 Don said that he does not know 24 the name of his replacement as the media 25 person. 20 1 MS. BRILL: Okay. I may have 2 stepped out for that. 3 MR. HESS: So that Don said that 4 he would, in all likelihood, recommend that 5 person to replace him. The same way Alan 6 recommended Tina to replace him. 7 And in terms of the action step, 8 because I think the rules are and we're using 9 this, that we just don't automatically kind 10 of put the person on. But rather we put that 11 person to a vote. And we have Tina on the 12 slate, accordingly. And so what I'm 13 recommending is, procedurally, we can't just 14 put in blank P&G because we don't have that 15 name. But rather during the summer, as soon 16 as the name comes up, if Don does then sort 17 of recommend, then I will contact first the 18 steering committee, then the CRE, assuming 19 the steering committee says, yes, for a vote 20 online, okay. 21 MS. BRILL: Thank you. 22 MR. HESS: Anything else? 23 Because if there isn't, I basically would 24 just like to put this to a vote. If you 25 agree with the slate and it's a yes/no vote 21 1 on the entire slate, if you agree with the 2 slate, and in the room, those who are in the 3 room, please raise your hand. And then I'll 4 do a separate one if you agree raising your 5 hand is a yes vote. Nielsen people don't 6 vote. So that's why you don't see some hands 7 up. Or if it's okay, we're voting on the 8 slate, yes or no. 9 MS. GALLAGHER: Oh, yes. 10 MR. HESS: Again, just sticking 11 to the room. Any no votes for the slate? 12 Okay. Then what about on the 13 telephone, on the telephone? I won't ask you 14 to raise your hand. But let me know if there 15 are no no votes on the phone. Any one of you 16 on the phone who votes no, let me know, okay. 17 Well, then, like an auctioneer, 18 going once, going twice, three times. There 19 are no no votes. I get to use a double 20 negative. There are no no votes. So let's 21 say that the slate has been passed 22 unanimously. 23 I look forward to welcoming the 24 people. I think that the actual procedure 25 that we're going to follow is that Richard is 22 1 empowered to draft the welcoming note. And 2 then, Mark, it will go over our distinguished 3 chairman's name. Mark will then send out a 4 personal note to each person. Let's 5 personalize that. Kind of put some flourish 6 around it. It's a big deal. And I think 7 especially, some of these people, they 8 actually sent their bios six or eight months 9 ago. It just took us a while to get the 10 entire slate together. 11 MR. ZACKON: Our new 12 communications committee may want to put out 13 a press release. 14 MS. PANTANINI: We can do that. 15 MR. HESS: Absolutely. Jessica 16 and Mark, you can work together. 17 Richard. 18 MR. ZACKON: Jessica and Anne 19 will get the resources Nielsen is providing. 20 MR. HESS: That's super. And 21 again, I want to express my personal thanks 22 and the thanks of the steering committee for 23 all of the behind-the-scenes phone calls, 24 E-mails or here's the right spelling of the 25 name. All of that did take place. I think 23 1 we ended up with a great result. 2 MR. ZACKON: No doubt these 13 3 people will take part after all the findings 4 this committee is going to report out. 5 MR. HESS: You committee chairs 6 who are out there, you have 13 fresh names to 7 go after to try to recruit related to this 8 issue. So the slate is in. 9 The next point, very briefly, is 10 Richard and Mark and I had a brief discussion 11 about the fact that technically we should be 12 holding our re-elections for officers this 13 September. Because we've been calling the 14 September, I mean, quote, the annual meeting. 15 However, our recommendation is that we change 16 the annual meeting to December. 17 One, it finishes the year. But 18 maybe that makes sense to begin with. And as 19 we exit a year and move into a new year. And 20 then, second, it would also give our new 21 members a chance to actually serve on the 22 committee for one to come to the meeting in 23 September to call in, one whole meeting 24 before we vote for officers in December. 25 So, Richard, I'm not sure from a 24 1 bylaw basis if that's something we have to 2 vote for. 3 MR. ZACKON: I think if the 4 Council says it's acceptable to call our 5 December meeting our annual meeting, thereby 6 having Mr. Kaline serve at least another 7 three months as the chair. 8 MR. HESS: Yes, yes. I'm 9 assuming that we can say that that's the 10 sense of the Council to go ahead. If there's 11 any negative, let's discuss it. Otherwise, 12 we can move on. Okay. So we'll move that to 13 December. 14 And then, separately, without 15 going into it now because I know we have 16 several presentations to make, I also want to 17 let you know that one of the follow-ups in 18 terms of upcoming steering committee meetings 19 will be a discussion of several issues 20 involving the bylaws. And just very briefly, 21 they have to do with things like we talked 22 about, the emeritus rule just to make sure 23 that that is kind of official and formalized. 24 There's issues on, technically, 25 the CRE is empowered to sign checks. But I 25 1 think Nielsen has been signing checks. 2 Issues like that. A few administrative 3 issues. Nielsen, I think, technically has to 4 approve dollar amounts over $10,000. These 5 are all things we bring up at the steering 6 committee and then kind of get formalized 7 between the bylaws. 8 MR. ZACKON: Come back to the 9 Council for vote. 10 MR. HESS: Any bylaws changes we 11 would have to bring to the Council. 12 MR. GREEN: Mike, there might be 13 some mechanical things. I'm not sure there's 14 a bank account. So signing checks from what 15 bank account would be the question. We 16 should go through that. 17 MR. HESS: Obviously, as part of 18 this it will be a steering committee issue. 19 Well, we'll take it up at the steering 20 committee. Then bring it to the full 21 Council. But I think you guys actually serve 22 on the steering committee will be there. 23 So let me see. I think I covered 24 all the issues. We have five points and 25 we've covered all five on the steering 26 1 committee. 2 Mark. 3 MR. KALINE: Okay. Thanks, Mike. 4 Nancy, I know you just arrived, 5 but you're up. 6 MS. GALLAGHER: Okay. 7 MR. KALINE: How about an update 8 on the universe estimates? 9 MS. GALLAGHER: Well, our RFP 10 went out. And the dates, the deadline has 11 arrived. And we have received five proposals 12 so far from Ohio State, RTI, Knowledge 13 Network, Innovate, and Adgate. And there's 14 one more coming from Market Tools. So, you 15 know, we haven't done the in depth, go 16 through them yet. But I have done the 17 cursory read of them all. And there's a wide 18 spectrum of sophistication, to put it mildly. 19 MS. SHAGRIN: And cost. 20 MR. KALINE: With sophistication. 21 MS. GALLAGHER: They go from 22 150,000 to 1.8 million. So there's a lot of, 23 unfortunately, I think the 1.8 million will 24 probably prove a little impractical for an 25 ongoing measure. But there is some good 27 1 stuff. But there actually is some really 2 good stuff in that proposal. 3 MR. ZACKON: When do you think 4 the committee would be in a position to come 5 back with a recommendation to this Council? 6 MS. GALLAGHER: Hopefully, by the 7 next meeting. Like I said, we're still 8 waiting for Market Tools to come in. And 9 then, unfortunately, the month of August is 10 not any good for me because I'll be -- 11 MR. ZACKON: You have that 12 sporting event. 13 MS. GALLAGHER: -- somewhere in 14 China I have to be at. But I'm hoping we can 15 have a meeting toward the end, within the 16 next three weeks to at least go over what we 17 received so far. And I think there's some 18 quick reading that can be done. There's 19 really some quick reading that can be done, I 20 think. 21 MR. KALINE: Okay, great. Any 22 comments or questions? 23 Shari. 24 MR. HESS: I do actually have one 25 comment. I know this comes up at every 28 1 meeting so maybe I'll just surface it now. 2 You gave us a big range, Nancy, 3 of dollars. Are there actually any budget 4 range issues that constrain you at this point 5 or that we should be sensitive to? 6 MS. GALLAGHER: No. I think 7 we're okay so far. It's interesting though, 8 because like two of the proposals are at the 9 high end which is where I thought most of 10 them would be. 11 MS. BUSLIK: I think they 12 reflected different interpretations of what 13 we were really looking for. 14 MR. HESS: From like a total 15 funding point of view, in terms of how much 16 Nielsen has contributed to the pot and so on, 17 you don't have to draw the line anywhere in 18 terms of what we spent, what we could spend. 19 I mean, any of those are fair game right now. 20 MR. ZACKON: Four of the five 21 were within the budget. 22 MS. GALLAGHER: Yes. The high 23 one is a little out there. 24 MR. GREEN: Also from a CRE 25 perspective there should be some 29 1 consideration/discussion in terms of what 2 other groups want to tap. Just a broader 3 perspective. 4 MR. ZACKON: That might encourage 5 Nancy's committee to move a little bit more 6 quickly. 7 MS. BUSLIK: We'll all go to 8 China with her. 9 MS. SHAGRIN: Good, great idea. 10 MR. SCHWARTZ: Do we have any 11 update on where we are in the budget? 12 MR. ZACKON: Yes. It hasn't 13 changed in terms of the last meeting. And we 14 still have 1.7 million available to fund 15 further research. It won't cover the 1.8. 16 MR. HESS: The 1.7, that has not 17 been committed in any way at this point. 18 MR. ZACKON: Yes. 19 MR. KALINE: Which is another 20 good reason to have the year-end meeting at 21 the end of the year so that we can do the 22 annual accounting. And before Nielsen's 23 approval process for next year's budget, and 24 so forth. 25 MR. GREEN: Just a clarity point 30 1 on budget. The money that Richard referred 2 to is a fund. It's not tied specifically to 3 this year. 4 MR. ZACKON: That's right. 5 MR. GREEN: Just to be clear 6 about that. 7 MR. ZACKON: But the committee -- 8 MR. GREEN: Because the way Mark 9 was framing it, I just want to be clear about 10 that. 11 MR. ZACKON: I was wondering, 12 Paul and Mark, as the committee moving 13 forward begins making some recommendations, 14 does that encourage or discourage Nielsen 15 from further funding when they see the type 16 of projects we're funding? 17 MR. DONATO: I don't know if that 18 wouldn't have an effect. I think the funding 19 of the program is a function of its 20 perception as a service to the client 21 community. And so I presume that the 22 programs that you're talking about are the 23 ones that you think are important. 24 And so, you know, our mission is 25 to, again, give something that services the 31 1 client community so they can research things 2 that they feel are important that otherwise 3 might not get done because of whatever 4 reason. 5 MR. KALINE: Okay. Any other 6 comments? 7 Now I'll turn it over to Shari. 8 MS. BRILL: Good afternoon, 9 everyone. You should have a copy of our 10 progress report in your folder. And I 11 believe that many of you may have received it 12 yesterday via E-mail. So it may help you to 13 have it out to follow along with some of the 14 things I'm going to review. 15 If you remember, just as a brief 16 review, the study objective for the Video 17 Consumer Mapping study was to mention the 18 current consumption of media focusing across 19 video in order to identify measurement gaps 20 and optimal forms of media measurement. 21 Our committee was very pleased 22 with the progress that's happening to date. 23 And, as you recall, our mapping study had two 24 components. We had a core sample consisting 25 of 350 respondents from forced turnover homes 32 1 that were given to Ball State 2 University/Sequent Partners from Nielsen. 3 They were going to be selected across five 4 DMAs and to be measured at two different 5 intervals. One in the spring and one in the 6 fall. 7 We are capturing 17 different 8 media across various locations. And there 9 are many subcategories contained within. 10 Separately, there's an acceleration sample 11 consisting of 100 respondents within the DMA 12 of Indiana. 13 These respondents were given the 14 opportunity to purchase game-changing media 15 devices at half the cost of what their retail 16 value would normally be, for a total 17 allowance of $4,000. And they would be 18 refunded 50 cents on the dollar. 19 There was a pre-observation, 20 pre-acceleration observation component. A 21 period where these consumers will be 22 accelerated once they get these devices in 23 hand and a post-acceleration observation. 24 Currently, in the sample 25 disposition status, we have 391 completed 33 1 observations for the core sample with one 2 more coming in by the end of the week 3 separately. And that consists of 367 from 4 Nielsen's FTO homes. Plus we had to go out 5 and recruit another 25 additional younger 6 women. And they were recruited via Ball 7 State University directly. And the reason we 8 had to go with that route was because the 9 sample from the FTO homes did not have enough 10 younger female respondents within them. And 11 we needed to balance out our sample. And 12 that was the best way that we felt to do it. 13 Because to do it any other way would have 14 added to cost and would have severely 15 compromised the timing for the study. 16 On the acceleration side, we have 17 106 completed observations which so far 196 18 different items purchased with the bulk of 19 purchases being sourced from high def TV sets 20 and video gaming consoles such as the Wii and 21 the EPS-3. There have been quite a few 22 iPhone requests. And we are now extending 23 the purchase cycle to the week of July 11th 24 when the new iPhone will become available. 25 So, Mike, are you able to get us 34 1 any? 2 MR. HESS: I am trying. And I've 3 actually been in touch with our account 4 director for Apple. And she's making 5 efforts. She has not found out a definitive 6 yes yet, but I haven't gotten a no either. 7 So we're still in the process of it. 8 MS. BRILL: Hopefully, the day 9 they hit the street we'll be able to find 10 some way to get this into the hands of our 11 respondents because they are an extremely 12 desirable item. And when the whole idea of 13 the study is to see what types of items get 14 selected, because it's supposed to, you know, 15 move the purchase cycle to early March when 16 items usually go down in price. 17 So the first thing is a really 18 good examination to see what our consumers 19 are interested in acquiring. Secondly, how 20 will these items change how they ultimately 21 consume video. And we will see that in the 22 post-acceleration phase when we observe them 23 again. 24 Now, I'd like to take you through 25 our sample disposition analysis just to give 35 1 you a quick summary of where we are to date. 2 On the core side we match up very 3 nicely with these demographics cohorts versus 4 the U.S.. Unfortunately, these pages aren't 5 numbered. But it's the color chart that says 6 sample disposition and co-op rates. 7 In terms of the ethnicity, we'll 8 have final numbers once the rounds of 9 observations are completed. But right now 10 they're laying out with, you know, 78 percent 11 Caucasian, 13 percent African-American. And 12 then there was a group that indicated that 13 they belong to more than one category. And, 14 you know, that is happening in the country. 15 There are a lot of people who consider 16 themselves to be biracial. In terms of 17 Hispanics, we have representation of about 12 18 percent. 19 Following page is a detailed look 20 at the response rate analysis. 21 MR. DeVAULT: Can I ask a 22 question. 23 MS. BRILL: Yes. 24 MR. DeVAULT: In terms of the 25 Hispanics, do you know how they break down in 36 1 terms of language spoken? 2 MS. BRILL: I will have to get 3 back to you and get those numbers. But we 4 did employ Spanish-speaking recruiters. So I 5 will go back and have them split out that 6 number by language. 7 MR. DeVAULT: What's the 8 definition? 9 MS. BRILL: I did not catch that. 10 MR. DeVAULT: What's going to be 11 a definition of language spoken? 12 MR. WAKSHLAG: We're using 13 Nielsen's policies. 14 MR. DONATO: For the TTOS we have 15 their data. 16 MR. WAKSHLAG: If Nielsen says 17 they're an Hispanic caller, they're an 18 Hispanic caller. 19 MS. SHAGRIN: How are you going 20 to determine their language? Are you going 21 to reask the language question? And this is 22 an individual. 23 MS. PANTANINI: Not a household. 24 MS. SHAGRIN: It's not a 25 household. 37 1 MR. DONATO: We do ask the 2 language of every individual. 3 MR. DeVAULT: Can we ask or 4 confirm the issue again? 5 MS. SHAGRIN: We should ask it. 6 Because the time has gone since then. And 7 you're picking an individual who may or may 8 not have been in the household at that time. 9 So I think you have to ask the question. 10 MR. DeVAULT: Okay. 11 MS. BRILL: I'm sorry, Ceril, I 12 didn't hear you. Can you repeat that? 13 MS. SHAGRIN: Henry asked whether 14 we're going to use the same process of 15 confirm or reask that is used in the audit 16 process. And my response was that you would 17 have to reask the question because you were 18 dealing with a single individual in the home 19 who may or may not have been there at the 20 time that they were initially recruited or 21 attempted to recruit and whose language use 22 may have changed. But you would ask the 23 standard Nielsen question. 24 MR. ZACKON: Which we can do in 25 the second wave to confirm. 38 1 MS. SHAGRIN: You're light on 2 Hispanics and may or may not be light on 3 Spanish dominance. But at this point, you 4 know, you don't know. And this is underway. 5 So I'm not suggesting anything different be 6 done other than that we audit to know. 7 MS. BRILL: Okay. And you're 8 right. 9 MR. IVIE: If I can just add 10 there might be two datapoints that you want 11 to check. One is to ask the language 12 preference question that Ceril is talking 13 about. But then the second is just what 14 language was the observation interview 15 conducted in. So if you capture those two 16 datapoints, I think you have pretty good 17 information and have access to both. 18 MR. ZACKON: Another too, where 19 you have an observer who observes them during 20 the day, the observer can tell you whether 21 Spanish or English was the majority spoken. 22 MS. SHAGRIN: But the Nielsen 23 definition and the one that most everybody is 24 using is language spoken at home. And 25 they're observing them a great deal of time 39 1 outside of the home. So I don't think the 2 observer or the language that they are using 3 outside of the home is going to be as 4 critical as getting the answer to the in-home 5 question. 6 MS. BRILL: Well, we can also get 7 a third number and look at the number. We do 8 have Spanish-speaking observers that were 9 sent. We make every effort to match on 10 language and gender as much as we can on the 11 age of the respondents. So a younger female 12 will, you know, will shadow a younger female. 13 MR. KALINE: Okay. 14 MS. BRILL: The response rate 15 analysis which comes next breaks down the 16 different calculations based on the total 17 starting sample all the way through a 18 calculation based on the percent of those 19 FTOs who are willing to do the BSU/Sequent 20 observation. 21 And moving over to column F 22 because I just like that number of 85 23 percent, if you discount for bad phone 24 numbers, people who couldn't complete 25 interviews, and one that had to be suspended 40 1 in mid-interview because of drug use, because 2 every effort's made for the observer to be in 3 a safe environment. 4 MR. DONATO: Was the respondent 5 using drugs? 6 MS. BRILL: It was the 7 respondent. It was the respondent. 8 MR. DONATO: It was the 9 respondent? 10 MS. BRILL: Yes. 11 MR. ZACKON: We actually consider 12 that a good sign. Spoke to the trust that 13 the participants had with the observer. 14 MR. GREEN: But it might skew 15 behavior. 16 MS. BRILL: Even though they knew 17 they were being observed and watched, they 18 just didn't really care what they were doing. 19 MR. ZACKON: They may have had 20 the wrong incentive. 21 MS. BRILL: Yes. So, once we 22 converted them over to Willis and eliminated 23 the people who, you know, whether they were 24 bad numbers, and then there was that drug use 25 incident, we did complete 85 percent of them. 41 1 Even though we originally intended, and keep 2 in mind, this was based on the Nielsen number 3 only, not on the additional 25 that BSU had 4 to recruit on its own. And we did get a few 5 more interviews than we actually needed with 6 391. And the reason for that was we wanted 7 to ensure that we'd be able to be able to 8 have 350 for both interviews. And we do 9 anticipate that there could be some attrition 10 along the way between round 1 and round 2. 11 On the acceleration side, 12 clearly, our sample does not really reference 13 back to what they would be in the population. 14 And that's not really our intent. Because 15 the purpose of this part of the study was to 16 really look at who would potentially be early 17 majority adopters. And they don't 18 necessarily align directly with the 19 population. 20 So, finally, just to review our 21 timeline, we have, Beta cleaning is going on 22 with our round 1 as we speak. 23 MR. DONATO: Shari, on the men in 24 the acceleration panel, are those numbers 25 right? 42 1 The ACF reference is all 14, 13, 2 13. And looks like the observed is 37, 13. 3 MS. BRILL: Oh, okay. It's the 4 same rate on the women. They were breaking 5 down their sample, adding to 100 within the 6 gender versus adding up to adults. So that's 7 not aligning. You can probably reconfigure 8 the numbers so they match up. 9 MR. DONATO: Okay. So keep in 10 mind, so, for example -- 11 MR. ZACKON: You raise a good 12 point, Paul. 13 MS. BRILL: We did catch that 14 one. Yes. 15 MR. DONATO: Keep in mind it's a 16 hundred people. Just the variability alone, 17 a hundred people, you'll be plus or minus. 18 MR. ZACKON: Not that much. 19 MS. BRILL: Yes. So during the 20 month of July we're going to have debriefings 21 and questions that we'll be asking observers 22 about their experience with the respondents. 23 And we're going to start analyzing the data 24 that comes out of round 1. 25 In August, the committee is going 43 1 to get together to do detailed working 2 sessions with BSU/Sequent to work out 3 reporting mechanisms for this study. There 4 will also be refresher training taking place 5 for the observers who are getting ready to 6 start round 2 which begins in the fall. And 7 there will also be post-acceleration 8 observation with the accelerated group. 9 A target date to be out of the 10 field is right before Election Day. And data 11 cleaning and processing will occur within the 12 balance of the month. In December we will 13 start to have an initial analysis of round 2. 14 And to be able to compare differences that 15 took place between round 1 and the second 16 round of observations. 17 Early '09 we will get back 18 together with BSU. Do more working sessions 19 on reporting and work to put together top 20 level results for the Council. And then we 21 have to figure out how we're going to 22 disseminate it to the Nielsen client 23 community at large. And then to the greater 24 industry at large who are not Nielsen 25 clients. 44 1 So, that's it. Does anyone have 2 any questions? 3 MR. ZACKON: Shari, to that end, 4 the last point you made, can we work towards 5 the Nielsen client meeting next probably 6 February or March? 7 MS. BRILL: That will be a goal. 8 Absolutely. 9 MR. ZACKON: Not maybe the full 10 report submitted, but top results reported 11 out? 12 MS. BRILL: Yes. I think the 13 timing is perfect for that to happen. 14 Do we know when that meeting is? 15 MR. DONATO: It's always like in 16 February. I know it's always been 17 Valentine's Day. But there was talking of 18 moving it to March. And I don't know if that 19 ever panned out because of the way -- 20 MS. BUSLIK: The TV thing. That 21 little thing. 22 MR. KALINE: Any other comments? 23 MS. SHAGRIN: We need it before 24 then rather than after then. 25 MR. ZACKON: Shari, would you 45 1 like to invite the nonmembers of the 2 committee to our data day in August? 3 Does anyone want to go through 4 the data that day? 5 MS. BRILL: You're all welcome if 6 you want to take a first cut at the data with 7 all of us. Those two dates to keep in mind 8 are August 6th and August 28th. I can't 9 think off the top of my head what days of the 10 week they are. I think they're a Wednesday 11 and a Thursday. 12 MR. ZACKON: We're going to get 13 together and just go through the data. 14 MS. BRILL: From 10:00 a.m. to 15 2:00 p.m.. 16 MR. GREEN: If anyone is 17 interested, raise your hand so the Sequent 18 people can storm -- 19 MR. ZACKON: Work with Shari. If 20 you're interested in going, let Shari know. 21 MS. BRILL: Yes. Send me an 22 E-mail. What I'll do is, I guess, you may. 23 I'll send out a note to everyone on the 24 Council. 25 MR. ZACKON: A lot of people have 46 1 complained they don't have enough to do these 2 days. 3 MS. BRILL: Yes, yes. Especially 4 me. I don't have anything to do. 5 MR. WAKSHLAG: I would like to 6 thank Shari for the extraordinary amount of 7 time and effort she's put into working on 8 them. 9 MR. ZACKON: I'd like to thank 10 Shari and the whole committee. It's really 11 been a focused group. It's been a pleasure 12 to work with. 13 MS. BRILL: Well, thank you. 14 Thank you. And I'd like to thank everyone 15 who's been working with me. 16 MR. KALINE: I think for those of 17 you who had missed some opening comments, I 18 think it was clear at the ARF meetings 19 yesterday that this work is going to be 20 received, you know, with open arms and ears 21 by the community. Because everybody's 22 talking about, you know, multitasking and 23 taking the video with you and how do we 24 measure it. And what's the behavior now that 25 all these devices are available. 47 1 So this is pretty much spot on 2 with a lot of the comments that were made in 3 a lot of the panels yesterday. 4 MS. BRILL: And it's really been 5 great working with BSU/Sequent. It reaffirms 6 our decision that we picked the right people 7 to go forward with this study. So I'm quite 8 pleased. Happy even. So you can pay them. 9 MR. KALINE: Any more comments 10 from the people on the phone? Thanks, Steve. 11 Ceril. 12 MS. SHAGRIN: What were we going 13 to change the name to? 14 MR. ZACKON: Response bias. 15 MS. SHAGRIN: Something like 16 that. 17 Well, we're certainly winding 18 down. You have in your folder a copy of 19 slides that were from the meeting that I had 20 with the folks at Nielsen that are working on 21 this and the folks at University of Michigan 22 that are working on this. 23 Basically, we talked about the 24 Nielsen analysis plan. And just so you're 25 aware, Nielsen is planning a self-analyses. 48 1 And they will interpret those analyses. The 2 professors are going to also do a series of 3 analyses. They've agreed on what everything 4 means so that they're all going in with the 5 same set of assumptions in terms of how to 6 interpret the data. 7 But then they will each provide 8 their own view of what the data tells them. 9 So, hopefully, they'll approve the validity 10 of the study. They're going to evaluate the 11 difference in tuning metrics among those who 12 responded and those who didn't respond. And 13 if they included the nonresponders and the 14 responders together, how different would the 15 tuning be. 16 I'll let you look at these 17 charts. If you have any questions, I'm happy 18 to answer them. But, basically, they're 19 going to look at viewing or tuning within the 20 household. Because we ask a series of 21 questions about what the household does and 22 then also take a look at the same sort of 23 information based on the responders. So we 24 ask that in the survey, we said, tell me 25 about your household habits and then tell me 49 1 about your habits. So the analyses will 2 break out both of these separately. 3 In terms of how did we do as a 4 sample, not quite as well as I was hoping or 5 as well as Paul Abraxis had anticipated when 6 we drafted, when we agreed to the proposal. 7 Maybe he was overly optimistic. And maybe 8 there were other things that contributed to 9 this. 10 On the diary side we started out 11 with a potential sample of 9,000 homes. We 12 ended up with 6,000, or 67 percent response 13 rate. On the metered side we started out 14 with 2,300 homes and ended up with 1,759 or a 15 76 response rate. So we still had pretty 16 high response rates in terms of being able to 17 analyze this data. 18 We will be able to look at the 19 hard core nonresponders in terms of perhaps 20 prism codes or the zip code that they live 21 in. And try to get some better understanding 22 of those hard core nonresponders. 23 If I had any, I have to say this, 24 if I had any disappointment in how this has 25 been working so far, we expected higher 50 1 response rates from the RTI in-person 2 interviews. The initial design was sort of 3 they'll keep trying. They'll make as many 4 attempts. And they will spend as much money 5 as needed in terms of incentive in order to 6 get those hard core nonresponders. I don't 7 think that happened. I think RTI made three 8 visits. And if they got a refusal they 9 didn't go back. So there were a few hard 10 cores that they went back to. 11 But, basically, the one thing 12 that I am a little disappointed in and I 13 wanted to share with you were the efforts 14 that were made to get most hard core 15 responders. Hopefully, we're still going to 16 have a lot of good data and a lot of learning 17 from this, including looking at things like 18 fault rates among the households that were in 19 the sample and seeing if we can differentiate 20 the viewing patterns of those homes versus 21 the ones that had better compliance. 22 We expect to get the data. The 23 target is to get the analysis from both 24 groups by August 18th. After which I'll meet 25 with my whole committee and we'll review 51 1 those analyses. And we should be able to 2 share then at the September meeting the 3 results of this research. 4 MR. DONATO: Ceril, do you know 5 if anyone has spoken to RTI about your 6 suspicions? 7 MS. SHAGRIN: I do not know. 8 MR. DONATO: You do not know. 9 MS. SHAGRIN: I do not know. I 10 did in the meeting that I had at Nielsen -- 11 MR. DONATO: Right. 12 MS. SHAGRIN: -- I did say that I 13 was very disappointed in that response rate. 14 And the answer I got was, well, you shouldn't 15 have expected it to be higher because those 16 are the hard core nonresponders. And the 17 reality is you won't get them to respond. 18 But if you read the initial 19 proposal it includes language that said, and 20 it includes extra dollars that said that that 21 the in-person, the hard core nonresponders, 22 there would be multiple attempts. And no 23 limit on if you had to give them $250 to fill 24 out the survey, so be it. And to the best of 25 my knowledge, that was not done. 52 1 MR. DONATO: Okay. I think we 2 need to present that to them and ask them for 3 an explanation. But, I mean, we'll take care 4 of that. 5 MS. SHAGRIN: I did ask about why 6 were the response rates not better. And the 7 answer I got was I shouldn't have expected 8 them to be better because those were the 9 hardest to get. 10 MR. POLTRACK: Isn't that what 11 the purpose of the study was? Seems a little 12 naive of us to think that. 13 MS. SHAGRIN: Again, I want to 14 share that. 15 MR. POLTRACK: Nonresponse study 16 with significant response error. 17 MS. BUSLIK: Nonresponsive. 18 MS. SHAGRIN: We have 76 percent 19 of the metered sample, which, you know, we 20 thought with the in-person we'd get to 85. 21 We got to 76. Do I think we could have 22 gotten to 85? I think if there had been a 23 significant effort with higher incentives, we 24 could have gotten to 85. 25 MR. POLTRACK: You know if they 53 1 used the differential at all? 2 MR. DONATO: That's what I want 3 to find out. I mean, if they come back with 4 a really passionate argument saying they were 5 offering fantastic amounts of money, but for 6 some people it's just no. And if they say 7 that with passion, gotten materials with 8 demonstrators, then we've just learned 9 something. If they don't do that, then we 10 can't get them. You know how to read 11 answers. If this is too soft an answer, then 12 they probably didn't try hard enough. 13 MS. SHAGRIN: Part of what RTI 14 was told to do was to have a full record with 15 observations for those that they didn't get a 16 completion. They're supposed to be providing 17 us with any observations of the effort that 18 they took and the type of neighborhood. And, 19 you know, was it multiple people that seemed 20 to be living in the house? Did they try with 21 multiple people? We're supposed to be 22 getting that information as part of the data 23 collection from RTI. And that should be part 24 of the analysis and the review that goes both 25 to the University of Michigan and the folks 54 1 at RTI. 2 MR. ZACKON: Might we get some 3 point of view from the University of Michigan 4 on the efforts and the appropriateness? 5 MS. SHAGRIN: Well, the 6 University of Michigan actually went to the 7 training for RTI. They actually went on some 8 of the field calls. They read, you know, all 9 of the instructions. And I got some very 10 positive feedback from them. A couple of 11 times I got back feedback that said we're 12 concerned about a particular procedure, which 13 I immediately sent to Nielsen. And they had 14 an explanation of why they were concerned. 15 So, you know, we sort of followed up on 16 everything. And maybe when we get the 17 observations on the ones that they didn't get 18 responses from, we'll look at it and say, oh, 19 yeah, this makes all the sense in the world. 20 I have not seen those yet. 21 MS. BURNS: Joanne Burns. 22 MR. ZACKON: By the way, is Pat 23 Liguori on the phone? 24 MS. LIGUORI: Yes, I am. 25 MR. ZACKON: I'm pleased to 55 1 announce that we've had more people at this 2 meeting than at any other meetings. 3 Ceril, just a point, she's not in 4 the room, but Jessica's new communications 5 committee, you might, yourself, or maybe 6 someone from the committee work with that. 7 Begin speaking about how the findings from 8 this will be disseminated. 9 MS. SHAGRIN: I will do that. 10 MR. ZACKON: Okay. 11 MR. KALINE: Any other comments? 12 Okay. 13 We're going to move on now to 14 some of the new initiatives that we want to 15 talk about and bring forth for the Council's 16 discussion and review. These were discussed 17 in the steering committee a few weeks ago. 18 And going to have each of the folks who 19 volunteered to sort of spearhead the effort 20 of discussion. We have them listed here. 21 Pat, George, Mike. And I think we're going 22 to have either Colleen or Ceril talk about. 23 MS. SHAGRIN: Or both. We did 24 agree that they were two separate projects. 25 MR. KALINE: Why don't we dive 56 1 in. And Pat, do you have an update for us? 2 MS. LIGUORI: Sure. As you can 3 tell by the name on the agenda, this 4 committee originally was going to look at 5 concepts of commercial avoidance. And it 6 became clear early on that one of the ways 7 that would have been ideal to look at 8 commercial avoidance would have been set-top 9 boxes. But there have been a spate of 10 articles that came out -- I'm getting 11 horrible feedback. 12 MR. ZACKON: You're breaking up a 13 little. We can hear you. 14 MS. LIGUORI: Okay. 15 A spate of articles came out 16 that's just been light on just, you know, how 17 some of the set-top boxes were working. And 18 so from that we kind of morphed into a 19 set-top box committee. We know that with the 20 time and place shifting there has been 21 increased demand for accountability and 22 commercial tuning or avoidance is one of the 23 ways that people have been asking, is one of 24 the things that people have been asking for. 25 Sorry. I'm watching somebody 57 1 hanging from a string from a building here 2 from a scaffolding that's a little loose. 3 But anyway, it's very bizarre. This building 4 is adding windows on every floor. It's an 5 old building. It's unbelievable. 6 Anyhow, as a means of determining 7 that commercial avoidance tuning, people are 8 using and have been using since 2005 set-top 9 box data. 10 So the goal of this committee is 11 to do a comprehensive investigation of 12 set-top boxes and learn as much as we can 13 before, you know, this thing goes any 14 further. And some of the findings that 15 people are parading out, you may find that 16 perhaps they're not as valid as people like 17 to believe. Not that we're going to form any 18 opinions. But anyhow, the areas that we can 19 target for inquiry and investigations are 20 from the technical side. 21 There are different manufacturers 22 of set-top boxes. And the boxes have 23 different features and functionality. And, 24 you know, how many of these boxes are out 25 there and who are the major players? Because 58 1 that can impact some of the data that people 2 will be obtaining if there's limited 3 functionality and it's limited geographically 4 or some other way. 5 The deployment. Are we talking 6 about Time Warner? Yes. We're talking about 7 Comcast and Charter. How large are their 8 footprints and where are the footprints? 9 Obviously, they're not going to be nationally 10 representative. But where are they? And 11 just exactly what are they collecting and 12 with what frequency? 13 One of the assumptions that I was 14 under, one of the impressions that I was 15 under is that set-top boxes are gathering 16 every single second of data. And I found 17 that is not necessarily the case. So that's, 18 again, something that has to be looked at. 19 The data mining, originally, when the MSOs 20 stated that. 21 Hello? 22 MR. ZACKON: We hear you. 23 MS. LIGUORI: I'm sorry. 24 The data that the MSOs were 25 looking at is different from what we would 59 1 look at. They're looking at it in terms of, 2 you know, the strategy of their channel 3 lineup. Their VOD offering and our use would 4 be somewhat different. So what are their 5 capabilities? And if they don't have 6 capabilities to process something useful and 7 meaningful, then who are they partnering 8 with? And we know that CNS and Nielsen are 9 two of those companies. 10 And also, will the data be 11 available just on a proprietary basis to 12 whomever the MSO is partnering with, or is it 13 something that can be purchased by those who 14 have interests? 15 The other issue related to the 16 frequency and granularity of data collections 17 system processing. Are there needs, is there 18 a need for edit rules and what might those 19 rules be? How should they be applied? 20 We talked about footprints. But 21 just to give you an example, Charter 22 Communications in L.A. which has 3,000 homes, 23 but it's got 17 different ad films. So it's 24 not a contiguous geography necessarily of the 25 L.A. market. So on the surface, I believe, 60 1 many people would make that assumption it's 2 L.A. date. Therefore, I think there's the 3 automatic assumption that it's DMA data, 4 which it's not. 5 Another aspect would be data 6 comparisons and usage. Is it something that 7 we would do to compare the tuning levels from 8 set-top box to Nielsen tuning, or LPM or 9 PPMs. Do we even want to compare it to 10 TiVo's set-top box data? If we even have 11 access to any of these. And, as I said 12 earlier, some have been using set-top box 13 data since 2005. 14 It would be great if through the 15 members on this committee we can open some 16 doors to us and allow us to either see some 17 data and discuss, you know, how the 18 information was used. What exactly you 19 found. What were the problems. Were there 20 any problems with the data, and, you know, 21 just overall what your experience was with 22 this type of data. 23 So far we've had a conference 24 call on 5/29 to review our mission statement. 25 And on July 10th we're planning a meeting at 61 1 Nielsen with Jeff Boehme and others to 2 basically give us a soup-to-nuts overview of 3 set-top boxes. Before we go, and, you know, 4 investigate with other people, we have the 5 need to know a lot of the basics. We need to 6 have a better understanding so we can figure 7 out what questions we want to ask. 8 And we think that Jeff with his 9 experience on the cable side, what he's doing 10 now, would be a very good person to give us 11 some knowledge. And that's it. 12 MR. KALINE: Okay. 13 MR. WAKSHLAG: Is Jeff in charge 14 of Nielsen's set-top box deal with Charter? 15 That's Jed Meyer. He doesn't work with Jed. 16 MR. DONATO: He does. He works 17 together. 18 MR. WAKSHLAG: Okay. 19 MR. DONATO: I'm sure Jed's going 20 to be involved also. 21 MR. GREEN: Jed's invited to the 22 meeting too. 23 MS. BRILL: I just want a 24 clarification. It's 300,000 homes, but not 25 300,000 boxes, right? 62 1 MS. LIGUORI: I have 300,000 2 households is I believe what was presented 3 earlier this week. 4 MR. DONATO: I think 400,000. It 5 might be 400,000. 6 MS. BRILL: 400,000 boxes? 7 MR. DONATO: Homes. 400,000 8 homes in L.A.. 9 MS. BRILL: Okay. 10 MR. ZACKON: Pat, do you see 11 before the end of the year coming to this 12 Council for an expenditure of significant 13 funds from our precious resources? 14 MS. LIGUORI: Probably not. 15 Because I think we'll still be going around 16 and learning, whether it's to people who have 17 actually used the data or the people who are 18 producing it. I don't see it before 19 December. 20 MR. ZACKON: Okay. 21 MR. KALINE: Might also be 22 interesting to see how as the lead TV 23 transition approaches whether there's any 24 change in behavior or acquisition of set-top 25 boxes through satellite companies or cable 63 1 subscribers. 2 MS. BUSLIK: They're pushing it. 3 MR. KALINE: They sure are. 4 MS. SHAGRIN: There undoubtedly 5 will be. 6 MR. KALINE: Okay. Thanks, Pat. 7 MS. LIGUORI: Okay. 8 MR. ZACKON: Thank you, Pat. 9 MS. LIGUORI: Thank you. 10 MR. KALINE: Over to George. 11 Talk about measurement. 12 MR. IVIE: Sure. I just want to 13 reiterate before I start with this that I'm 14 not sure I should chair a committee on this 15 Council. But I did do some follow-up on this 16 topic. Had several conversations. And I'm 17 trying to frame the issue and then present it 18 to you guys. 19 The way I see it, the passive 20 measurement area really could be looked at as 21 two components. There is measurement of 22 viewing data and then there's person's 23 attribution. And, you know, there are 24 passive and more active methods of doing 25 either. 64 1 So in the measurement of viewing 2 data, you could think about the intrusiveness 3 of your measurement technique as one thing 4 you can consider as a form of being either 5 passive or not passive. So if you have to 6 take apart somebody's TV, that's a less 7 passive thing than if you don't. And that's 8 thinking about a strict metering scenario in 9 electronic measurement. So that's one area 10 of exploration, is the intrusiveness of 11 measurement. 12 Second area of viewing data, I 13 think you'll see that this passive topic 14 overlaps other committees. But it would be 15 sort of a nonmeter-oriented data acquisition. 16 So if you're talking about getting viewing 17 data in nonmeter environments passively, 18 you're talking about things like what Pat 19 just started talking about. Set-top boxes or 20 other sources of viewing activity that you 21 could passively gather, you know, maybe just 22 by a one-time offering from the household. 23 So that's another area of study. 24 Then under audience attribution, 25 you also have meter orientations and nonmeter 65 1 orientations. So in the media orientation 2 you could have some kind of an active format 3 which would be kind of like what Nielsen has 4 today with people. Button measurement. And 5 you could look with things like how is that 6 done. How's prompting done. And, you know, 7 there's been some work done in that area. 8 And then you can have nonactive 9 method of persons' attributions which would 10 be something like pure behavioral 11 attributions. So you see what happens in the 12 viewing scenario. And you try to make 13 inferences about what's happening on the TV 14 relative to who's watching the TV, without 15 having any input from the audience. Or there 16 is just a pure model scenario. If you know 17 something about the household, you know, what 18 else you can observe passively? You can just 19 pure model what's happening. And there are 20 organizations out there that are doing all of 21 these. So that's kind of the way that my 22 conversation has led me to frame the issue. 23 In terms of a suggested approach, 24 there's been a lot of work, since this is a 25 Nielsen CRE, there's been a lot of work in 66 1 all these areas by Nielsen already. And I 2 think a logical step would be for this 3 committee to look at that and refresh on 4 that. And here I'm talking about what has 5 Nielsen done with its time-based prompting 6 study? What is Nielsen doing now with 7 in-panel validation techniques? 8 Nielsen did a few years ago a lot 9 of work on tokens, I think, in conjunction 10 with looking at what happened with PPMs and 11 other techniques. So maybe there's a way 12 some of that can be brought to us. And then 13 as it relates to audience attribution, there 14 are other divisions of Nielsen that probably 15 are doing more. For example, Nielsen Online 16 I've heard is doing some work on trying to 17 have passive methods of attributing who's 18 using the computer, for example. 19 MR. DONATO: Yes. 20 MR. IVIE: So that could be a 21 topic to bring to the CRE or this specific 22 committee. 23 And then, last, what Pat was 24 talking about in the cable area or Jeff and 25 Jed, I mean, there might be some efforts to 67 1 use keystrokes with remotes and things like 2 that to determine or attribute who's watching 3 the television. So those are areas that I 4 think existing research may exist, may be out 5 there that Nielsen can bring to the table. 6 So those would be the first steps 7 that I would say the committee should 8 undertake. Try to get some of this data from 9 Nielsen. Refresh on it. Determine what 10 actions should be taken. I think the overall 11 mission should be something like this, to get 12 an understanding of this research, figure out 13 what hasn't been studied, or if there are any 14 opportunities and pursue that. 15 Last thing I did, I think in the 16 last meeting it was mentioned that maybe you 17 want to approach Norm about being involved. 18 And I did that. And he said he was willing 19 to participate if we form a committee and go 20 forward with that. 21 So that's where I stand. I'm 22 willing to devote energy to this. But we 23 need some other people. 24 MR. GREEN: One of the things I 25 thought was discussed with the steering 68 1 committee is this idea of doing this. Start 2 a meeting with Nielsen in terms of passive. 3 So I've been asking around to get people to 4 to play in that. And I know Ceril is 5 interested in the passive discussion as well. 6 So I could work and prepare such 7 a meeting. 8 MR. HESS: You mentioned at the 9 outset that you weren't sure if you should 10 chair the committee. 11 Is that because of a potential 12 conflict/perceived conflict of interest, or 13 there's nothing in the bylaws that opposes 14 it. 15 MR. ZACKON: No, there isn't. On 16 the first meeting, George, you shouldn't be a 17 voting member. You happen to be a 18 participating member. 19 MR. IVIE: I'm willing to chair 20 some of it. I think we should discuss that. 21 Given my relationship with Nielsen which is 22 somewhat unique from a customer list, we just 23 should bring that out in the open. And if 24 everybody says that's okay, then fine, I can 25 work in that area. But, you know -- 69 1 MR. GREEN: Then the other 2 dimension that came up in the steering 3 committee call, I thought this is, off top of 4 my head, was this notion of how far do we go 5 relative to Nielsen proprietary versus market 6 knowledge. And the response I had in the 7 steering committee meeting was why don't we 8 get to the point of asking questions as we 9 go. 10 MR. IVIE: Yes. My perspective 11 from the outset was let's focus on the 12 research that Nielsen has done. 13 MR. GREEN: Right. 14 MR. IVIE: Since it's a Nielsen 15 CRE, there's a lot. We have people at the 16 MRC. We have companies that come to us 17 literally from all over the world that tell 18 us about audience attribution methods they 19 have for cable, and stuff like that. 20 I wasn't able to bring any of 21 that to the table in this meeting yet until 22 we understand what Nielsen's done, if at all. 23 MR. DONATO: I think there's a 24 lot of content to do that historical meeting 25 with respect to what Mark said. 70 1 We're also very actively involved 2 with a couple of laboratories. Never really 3 seen any data. Some of this stuff works 4 extremely well. It's also extremely 5 expensive. Some of this stuff works like 6 most attempts at passive have worked, which 7 is that they're 60 to 80 percent or 70 8 percent accurate. And so we would need to 9 figure out a way we would be happy to discuss 10 that, all of these technologies, with the 11 committee. 12 But we're also a little bit 13 reluctant because we're kind of bringing out 14 all of our R&D that we've done. And here's 15 why, here's the problem with sound. Here's 16 where it works, here's where it doesn't work. 17 And because of the public nature, much of the 18 output of the committee, as Mark said, we 19 kind of have to find our way through what was 20 an appropriate thing. 21 But if we can find a way of doing 22 that, knowing that we weren't basically 23 publishing the blueprint for passive for the 24 outside world, we'd be happy to share with 25 you all the crazy toys that Bob Love is 71 1 playing with right now. 2 I want to repeat. I think in the 3 beginning one of the reasons why I wanted to 4 be involved with this effort is because I 5 think more passive measurement both of 6 viewing data and of audience attribution, you 7 know, drives a lot of the issues that we see, 8 the whole nonresponse area, you know, where 9 we're going with cable oxygen data, that has 10 to be dealt with. 11 So if we can focus the study and 12 further the idea of moving Nielsen towards 13 more passive measurement in all these areas, 14 I think the better off we are. 15 I think it's a great committee to 16 be on. So we're looking for volunteers. 17 MR. WAKSHLAG: It just strikes me 18 that there's a very close interface between 19 this and Pat's group. You have the set-top 20 box data which is passive. And I guess as 21 you can get -- and then you've got other 22 passive measures. You know, people know what 23 you use your credit card with. So you start 24 linking Experion data with set-top box data 25 and you've got a passive system of some kind. 72 1 I'm not quite sure how it works. 2 Are you going that way too? 3 MR. IVIE: I think that can't be 4 ignored. That's part of it. But what I 5 don't want to leave off the table is Nielsen 6 has 15,000 national homes installed. And the 7 more passive that we seek to make that 8 measurement, the better off we are, you know, 9 in terms of the intrusiveness of the 10 metering, the way you gather people's data. 11 Stuff like that. 12 MS. SHAGRIN: And it may. 13 MR. IVIE: I think that should be 14 a necessary focus of this committee also. 15 MR. GREEN: George, I just add 16 one thing to your list of items here. The 17 viewing data, the audience attribution. 18 We might consider one other 19 thing. And that is, you know, with the 20 census data that we talk about set-top box, 21 et cetera, there's other types of gathering 22 of what is essentially census data, but 23 requires cooperation. 24 And so from the point of view of 25 intrusive in the process of, while the data 73 1 is passively collected, getting the data for 2 an audience measurement system or audience 3 reporting system requires cooperation; hence, 4 intrusion in somebody's private life. So the 5 idea of compliance or cooperation might be in 6 and of itself an independent avenue to 7 investigate. 8 MR. HESS: This last part of the 9 discussion made me think that with 13 new 10 people coming onboard there might be room for 11 another committee. But that committee 12 strikes me more like -- you'll have to help 13 me with the right expression -- but it seems 14 like there's been a lot of overlap in the 15 last few discussions. And there was even 16 overlap in Richard's earlier remarks in 17 saying several of us went to the ARF and what 18 kind of learning's there for this committee. 19 So it almost seems like in 20 addition to the communications committee 21 there could be -- and here's the word -- 22 learning committee. Like a more formal word; 23 a meta analysis. We learned this from 24 passive study from the nonresponse from the 25 other one that Shari talked about. And now 74 1 are there some things in the sense of meta 2 analysis that we can abstract out and cut 3 across for the purpose of kind of then having 4 a learning document. So that it's not just 5 each individual committee saying here's our 6 finding, which obviously is useful. But 7 because of the overlap that I think we've all 8 heard for the last few minutes, it sounds 9 like there's just something higher there as 10 well. 11 MS. BUSLIK: Mike, I was going to 12 second that also. I was thinking I can't 13 possibly be on another committee as a 14 full-time participant. But if there's a 15 meeting that I can attend which would, 16 because I'm on the set-top box committee 17 which this might fit into. I'd be more than 18 willing to attend it. But I think then 19 hopefully the 13 people would be. But I'd 20 like to hear some of this as well. And I 21 think that if more people hear it within the 22 committee and understand that it's held 23 within this group, the better off we are. 24 Because we all bring a different perspective 25 that can meld our ideas that way. 75 1 MR. ZACKON: A couple of 2 thoughts; one from what you just said. Our 3 September meeting which is extended might be 4 a good opportunity for that kind of meta 5 conversation. And that overlaps between the 6 Council. 7 And, George, I have somebody 8 here, who I won't mention the person's name, 9 but has a rough arm that I would love to 10 twist that might step up on this. 11 MS. SHAGRIN: One of the other 12 areas that I think this new committee could 13 explore is while you mentioned Bob Love's new 14 toys. And I got to see some of his new toys 15 in Phoenix. And was pretty impressed by the 16 strides that have been made in the last ten 17 years in terms of passive measurement. And 18 you think about the strides that have been 19 made in modeling and you combine those two, 20 you might get a 60 percent passive, purely 21 passive measurement, modeled up to a 98 22 percent accuracy level by putting different 23 ideas together. And to me that's what one of 24 the benefits I see of this committee. 25 MR. ZACKON: George, you're 76 1 willing, at least for now, to continue 2 spearheading that? 3 MR. IVIE: Sure. 4 MR. KALINE: Okay. Also have 5 application in things like gaming and some of 6 those other forms of video where you can get 7 the return path from online gaming and things 8 of that nature. 9 MR. DONATO: Right. And so much 10 of it is navigation. You have to share your 11 gameplay with other people. That's the way 12 you use it. 13 MR. KALINE: Okay. Any other 14 comments? Anybody on the phone? 15 All right, Mike. 16 MR. HESS: Yes. Thanks. 17 On psychographics is really, that 18 psychographics is a little bit out of left 19 field relative to the more standard topics 20 we've been talking about. Commercial 21 avoidance is certainly classical. Passive 22 has been around for a long time. 23 Psychographics, I have to admit, 24 that in my preliminary work in psychographics 25 in this area I think I ran across a finding 77 1 that basically said, hey, half the world 2 believes in psychographics and half the world 3 does not. And I think in the latter group, 4 at least a couple of those people are in this 5 room. And I'm sure they'll speak up at the 6 appropriate time. So I don't have to name 7 them. 8 But more seriously. So 9 therefore, because this is really kind of a 10 standard committee or standard topic, I think 11 that I should probably start at least with a 12 rationale. And I won't go much further. And 13 the rationale I'll talk about a little bit 14 about meetings that I've held with Mark 15 Green. So at the end of my comments, Mark, 16 if you can make a few comments as well, I 17 appreciate it. 18 But I think that the rationale 19 for me is that I'm a survey researcher turned 20 the last four years now media researcher. 21 And I really feel like in both survey 22 research and more recently in my four years 23 of media research I found a reason, a 24 rationale for psychographics. And so 25 psychographics, that rationale would be that 78 1 our industry both on the survey research side 2 and of course on the media research side, we 3 do believe in demographics. We look at male 4 versus female, older/younger, higher income. 5 Lower income, educated, not, and so on. 6 And in my experience now on both 7 sides of the fence, if you will, I think 8 demos really help. There's really no doubt 9 about it. And there's some areas where demos 10 make a great deal of sense. Like unless you 11 have a certain amount of income, you probably 12 can't buy a certain kind of car. So demos 13 definitely help. 14 On the other hand, I have found 15 in both fields that psychographics sometimes 16 are a much better filter than demographics 17 are. I think most of us, if we're honest 18 about it, found the same thing, at least for 19 some categories. 20 So since it's difficult to talk 21 about my own clients here for the usual 22 proprietary reasons, let me give one example 23 that I can talk about that I brought up at 24 the steering committee. And that isn't 25 really client-based. But when I served on 79 1 the Cincinnati Shakespeare Festival as a 2 board member and also their research person, 3 then I found that, interestingly enough, this 4 100 theater group, excuse me, not 100 5 theater, 100 person theater that we had in 6 downtown Cincinnati really did not attract a 7 predictable demographic. 8 In other words, even though it 9 was small and it was in the center of the 10 city, I couldn't predict that the audience 11 would automatically be 22 to 29-year-olds who 12 liked drama and liked to pay only $12 to get 13 in. But rather what I found was that demos 14 were not predictable at all. Because we had 15 retirees from Indian Hill, a rich suburb of 16 Cincinnati come just as regularly as maybe 17 the 27-year-old theater major. 18 So consequently, psychographics 19 was the way that I was able to segment that 20 market. And that's just one example. I've 21 been able to use psychographics to segment 22 financial services, without naming names. 23 I've been able to segment, you know, in a 24 published study that I could share with you 25 if you're interested, a few years ago I did 80 1 segmentation psychographically of the health 2 care business; specifically, women's health 3 care. Turned out to be not demographically 4 segmentable in this area. But rather it was 5 psychographically segmentable. And it turned 6 out the psychographic segmentation variable 7 was a woman's relationship with her doctor 8 was a key segmentation variable that cut 9 above any other demo, that sliced and diced 10 what we tried to do. 11 Anyway, so I said I would spend 12 most of my time on rationale. I think that 13 going forward I want to acknowledge a couple 14 of meetings; one on the phone, one in person 15 over breakfast that I had with Mark Green. I 16 feel like, therefore, one of the objectives 17 of this committee if we go forward with it is 18 having established, I think, a rationale. I 19 need help, Mark, in actually establishing the 20 objective. Like I think the objective of the 21 other committees is kind of obvious once you 22 listen to chair people speak. 23 In my case, I would like the 24 first objective to be kind of, well, just an 25 acknowledgement that psychographic kind of 81 1 works. But then the objective needs to be 2 -- the CRE, I think, is harder for me to nail 3 down. 4 So it's like do I want Nielsen, 5 for example, to have a demographic data which 6 it will never get away from, but also make a 7 psychographic supplement. And, if so, would 8 that be above and beyond what Simmons and MRI 9 are already providing to some extent, et 10 cetera, et cetera. 11 MR. GREEN: Right. And in those 12 conversations, I feel like we're having that 13 conversation again. And in those 14 conversations one of the things I conveyed to 15 Mike and I think is the direction where I 16 would like to see things go in terms of 17 investigation and research is in the case of 18 behavior. You know, if you look at 19 behavioral data, some behavioral data is 20 something that can be descriptive from a 21 gender and an age perspective. Other 22 behavioral data just doesn't fit. You know, 23 it's a mindset thing. And I think 24 psychographics has stepped in to essentially 25 describe those mindsets. And you can see 82 1 that on data. I was not at the ARF 2 yesterday. I was on the other coast 3 yesterday and playing around with data. And 4 essentially having the discussion about you 5 can't think of it from a demographic point of 6 view because the demographics don't fit to 7 this data. You can see it if you analyze it 8 that way. 9 But the other side of the fence 10 is before Nielsen, as some of you know, I was 11 in the agency world for quite some time. And 12 played with other datasets. And Nielsen does 13 not have a lot of psychographic datasets. 14 That's why I'm talking about it this way. 15 And one of the things that you 16 note or at least that I noticed was that 17 psychographics, some of its trendable, some 18 of it's not. And from a viewing point of 19 view, trendability is kind of an important 20 thing to really understand where you are 21 today, where you are tomorrow. 22 And so I think from a basic point 23 of view, one of the things that I would 24 really like to get at, one of the his basic 25 things that I'd like to get at, what I 83 1 conveyed to Mike is kind of this block and 2 tackling to understand what are the 3 components of psychographics. And how can we 4 get at what is trendable what is not 5 trendable. Maybe some governance around how 6 to think about psychographics and how to use 7 psychographics. 8 And so that will be something 9 that I would be very interested in if the CRE 10 is interested in that direction as well. I 11 think that might be part of the mission, to 12 figure out the blocking and tackling of 13 psychographics relative to data trendability. 14 MS. PANTANINI: I actually would 15 like to add to build on the direction we're 16 going in because from an ethnic perspective 17 it relates to an alteration that's a big 18 issue when it comes to Hispanic data today. 19 Is not really, we're segmenting a language 20 and not really to a culturalization in having 21 some of those key pieces that relate to 22 psychographics and how those, help people add 23 up is important both for African-American and 24 for Hispanics moving forward. 25 So I think there, if you want to 84 1 start someplace, have to trendability. In 2 the data that I've seen there is trendability 3 in some key pillars and that are used to 4 define certain a culturization perhaps is a 5 place to start. 6 MR. ZACKON: Just so people on 7 the phone know, we turned the phone down. 8 Someone had us on hold and there was some 9 sound there. We got back up. 10 MR. HESS: Based on those 11 comments -- I'm sorry, go on. 12 MR. POLTRACK: I think, actually, 13 from another perspective, I think to get back 14 to the other subjects where it's boring, like 15 nonresponse, I think that psychographics 16 segmentation is something that would be very 17 illuminating to be used in actually studying 18 nonresponse. Because that is, I think that, 19 I would probably think that psychographics 20 will discriminate between a responder and a 21 nonresponder more effectively than 22 demographics. 23 MR. ZACKON: Mike, to that 24 effect, the Ball State study has a component 25 in there, what they call a Big Five. 85 1 MR. HESS: Like drivers' 2 measures. 3 MR. ZACKON: You may be able to 4 do that. Responders, not nonresponders. 5 That may help in sort of that segmentation. 6 MR. HESS: My sense is so far the 7 naysayers haven't spoken up. But I don't 8 mind if you don't. My sense is that at least 9 with three or four people saying some 10 positive things in this meeting, it seems 11 like we at least have a rationale with the 12 next round of 13 people coming onboard to 13 have a committee to explore. 14 And maybe, Richard, you've been 15 asking the question of a couple of people, 16 will you come up with a proposal to the CRE 17 today that requests money? Probably not this 18 year is my sense. But I do think it's worth 19 exploring for a round or two. And if there's 20 something there, if there's a "there" there, 21 then coming in, say, in the spring and with a 22 proposal. 23 MR. ZACKON: In the welcome 24 letter to the new members I'll put out what 25 the committees are. And we'll specifically 86 1 invite people for some of the less popular 2 ones. 3 MR. WAKSHLAG: If we're going to 4 talk about measuring psychographics and 5 research excellence at the same time, then we 6 have to talk about reliability and validity 7 of the metrics so we can come up with all 8 kinds of measures, as many others have. 9 A major issue I have is in the 10 area of assessing research excellence or a 11 measure of psychographics. That one of the 12 essential components would be an assessment 13 of the research excellence approach. Which 14 means we means-test, retests, or split half. 15 Or any of the classic ways we go about 16 measuring testing and assessing research 17 quality. 18 When I ask when we determine what 19 somebody's age is, we don't assume if we ask 20 them the same question tomorrow they're going 21 to change their sex and their age. I'm not 22 sure that that's what happens with these 23 types of psychological measures, you know. 24 If we can figure out a way to do 25 it so that they are more stable and that they 87 1 are more valid, then I think we've made real 2 headway. So I've never been a naysayer in 3 terms of that. But a naysayer because no 4 one's demonstrated that what courts have, 5 test, retests. 6 MR. GREEN: Jack, that's part of 7 the blocking/tacklings I was referring to. I 8 think that would be instrumental. 9 MS. BUSLIK: Does that system 10 psychographic lead to the phase into fusion? 11 MR. HESS: Good question on 12 fusion. Actually, I did want to for those 13 who are interested in following up today, by 14 coincidence, the presentation that Irina 15 Fadeva and I did on psychographics where we 16 illustrated a couple of case studies is 17 actually available to everybody on the 18 committee listening in. If you go to the ARF 19 site on the Committee for Media Effectiveness 20 that Leslie Wood and I co-chaired, then by 21 coincidence, with respect to that question, 22 Michele, the February, the February meeting 23 was actually about fusion. And so we were, 24 we spoke on fusion. And we used the approach 25 that we've developed that basically took, and 88 1 I think this speaks to Jack's point, maybe 2 not up to the criteria that you want, Jack, 3 but at least in terms of kind of a functional 4 effectiveness for a study. We basically ran 5 a study in the field, an ad hoc study in the 6 field. But then to make it usable on the 7 media side, we then took bridge questions 8 that existed both in the ad hoc research 9 study as well as in MRI, bridged those two. 10 And then said, okay, if you're in segment 2 11 in the study that we did through clustering 12 analysis, psychographic segment 2, then can 13 we now map you into known media usage 14 patterns as reflected by your fused person 15 equivalent on the MRI side. And that method 16 actually worked. And led to important 17 differences with respect to how we plan 18 media. 19 So we actually did it. I don't 20 know if that totally answers your question. 21 But we actually did it as a fused approach. 22 And because we did it that way, that's why I 23 thought it would be worth bringing up here as 24 opposed to a meeting of the ARF or the AMA 25 because of the fusion potentially with media. 89 1 Yes. 2 MR. SUSSMAN: To that point it 3 actually helped in planning. And I think the 4 key point here, the difference between 5 planning and actually using it as a photo 6 currency or sort of currency. And I think 7 that's the link you really need to bring 8 together. Helped make smarter planning 9 decision. But how do you then inform between 10 individual media or whatever? 11 MR. HESS: Exactly. Ira, 12 exactly. That's why I said the part about 13 the objective. It's not, even though I'm, 14 let's say, passionate about psychographics 15 and I feel that it's useful. And actually 16 leads to functional differences in how you 17 decide to plan. From a CRE perspective, what 18 height does it have to reach to make it CRE 19 fundable? Does it need to, in effect, kind 20 of become sort of a currency or 21 quasi-currency? And that's why I'm still 22 kind of reaching for, hey, what's the right 23 objective vis-a-vis the CRE. 24 MR. WAKSHLAG: The right 25 objective partly is to see if it is, what is 90 1 the degree of validity and reliability. You 2 know, if we can't answer that question, we 3 can't go further. 4 So I'm perfectly happy saying we 5 can measure it at that fundamental level. 6 How valid/reliable are these methods by do a 7 retest? What percent of the time am I 8 getting identical results? As simple as 9 that. I think that's a Research Excellence 10 question that affects measures. Because if 11 we find certain metrics to be very stable, 12 there's no reason why those can't be asked as 13 part of Nielsen's mission analysis. 14 MR. ZACKON: Can I suggest that 15 between now and our September meeting you see 16 if you can get a group together to discuss 17 this. And come back and report to us. 18 MR. HESS: Absolutely. I 19 appreciate everybody's feedback today. Thank 20 you. 21 MR. KALINE: Moving right along. 22 Let's talk about media effectiveness. And 23 Ceril or Colleen, who wants to kick it off? 24 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: This isn't 25 nearly as documented or having had a 91 1 committee about this or anything like this. 2 But the idea is that, I'm sure I'm not the 3 only one that's very interested in knowing 4 all that I can about how content is being 5 consumed, particularly on television and 6 online. You know, MTV, Comedy Central. 7 Many of our brands are making 8 their contents available to stream online; 9 particularly streaming. I'm not really 10 talking about the whole download-to-own 11 thing. But that's an element as well. And I 12 think that, you know, obviously, I'm very 13 interested and have begun to discuss with, 14 you know, Howard and Nielsen Connect, the 15 opportunity to analyze using the conversion 16 panel and fusion panel what's really going 17 on. You know, who's doing one or the other 18 or both. 19 And I'm talking really, really 20 literally at the episode level. And I don't 21 know if there's a real bonus in that yet or 22 when there will be or if there ever will be 23 so that we can really get that content 24 offering at the optimized place on the curve 25 so that we're not, you know, that we're 92 1 serving the consumer, but not cannabilizing 2 what currently represents and probably will 3 for the next few years, the lion's share of 4 our revenues which is linear ad sales. 5 So I'm assuming that every 6 advertiser is interested in precisely the 7 same thing. Like how can they optimize where 8 they're putting their ads on media brands. 9 So I'm not looking at -- I'm not interested 10 at all in anything attitudinal, because I 11 think people are pretty bad at saying what 12 they do more or less of or what they did 13 yesterday or anything. 14 I'm much more interested in 15 trying to figure out if there's a way to 16 assess the tools that Nielsen is beginning to 17 roll out in terms of their ability to measure 18 this. So that was what I wanted to put forth 19 to the committee as something to potentially 20 undertake. 21 MR. HESS: Okay. 22 MR. KALINE: Comments, questions? 23 What do you think would be a next 24 step, Colleen? 25 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: Well, my next 93 1 step in the next 30 seconds is to find out if 2 anybody has the same questions. And if they 3 think that there is an appropriateness to 4 undertake this by this group? Don't rush. 5 MR. WAKSHLAG: This is an 6 interesting question. I guess it depends on 7 how the company views this committee's 8 analysis, or let's say desire to have experts 9 look under the covers of how they do these 10 processes. For example, Pete has a certain 11 way of doing fusions. Can't be the only way. 12 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: Right, right. 13 MR. WAKSHLAG: Are there 17 other 14 ways? And what is the relative quality of 15 those things in this specific application? 16 Because we are talking about video and 17 multiple platforms in this case. I think we 18 all are. The number of us have a concern 19 about linear TV, broadband, VOD, and 20 telephones. 21 MR. DONATO: Is the question 22 really about the methodology of integration 23 or is the question about how people are 24 behaving? 25 I just interpret you to be asking 94 1 about how people are behaving. But, Jack, 2 you seem, you think it's more about -- 3 MR. WAKSHLAG: I'm trying to 4 figure out. I would love to know how they 5 behave. I want to make sure that I know that 6 I'm putting the pieces together in the best 7 way I can before I determine what that 8 behavior is. 9 MR. DONATO: Right. I really do 10 think that the challenge for the next 18 11 months is figuring out how to put, if not 12 nine, seven streams of data together to 13 really capture the total video experience. 14 And that's really what you're going to have 15 to put together. And, you know, I said it 16 earlier in the week. So we've got fusion. 17 Now we've got a convergence panel. We're 18 just starting on that. But how we base this 19 all together. 20 Let's face it, if there's seven 21 streams of data out there, no one's going to 22 know what to do. You have to be able to 23 treat it like, okay, I want to know how many 24 impressions I had of all screens. Then I 25 want to be able to dive down and understand 95 1 when and how you saw it on the first and 2 second, the third. I'd also like to know 3 what the value of those are, I mean. 4 And it's a complex question. 5 Because it's not with the mobile ad. And 6 there's evidence right now that mobile ads 7 actually, maybe because it's early adopter, 8 whatever, but mobile ads actually have the 9 same brand recall as something that runs on 10 linear TV, despite the size of the screen. 11 So it's not a simple question of 12 so what's the value of a mobile ad versus the 13 amount of value of a linear TV ad. Because 14 what you're really going to be asking is if I 15 have two exposures on linear TV, is that 16 third exposure on Mike Maples' Three Is 17 Enough, does it get more recall if it comes 18 on another screen, a different screen. It's 19 those kinds of questions. 20 So I think everyone's got their 21 line of how to measure a set-top box. How do 22 measure this stuff. But we don't really know 23 yet how to put them all together into a 24 usable media planning system. 25 MR. WAKSHLAG: I'm not talking 96 1 about usable. I'm talking about is there 2 someone who can say there's a 3 methodologically superior way of combining 4 these various, these various silos. I'd love 5 to know. 6 MS. BUSLIK: I think you're going 7 too far by saying it's a third, different if 8 it's on mobile versus linear. 9 First thing we need to know is 10 how do we get them all together. And is that 11 a valid measurement of whatever the combo is. 12 I don't know how you or any service can do 13 for every product, for every demo, for 14 everything that has, every ad that has a 15 different selling point and objective. 16 How you can do that last part of 17 what you said? But I think we need to have 18 confidence in the merged or fused or whatever 19 data first. That would be my objective. 20 MR. POLTRACK: I think it's a 21 very critical area. 22 And I guess the question I have 23 is the big study, Ball State study, doesn't 24 that have to be completed first before we 25 could tackle this subject? Because that -- 97 1 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: Yes, I agree. 2 MR. POLTRACK: -- gives us the 3 dimensions of what this is. If I were given 4 the assignment to do this, I'd say, well, 5 give me the Ball State study and then I'll 6 know where I want to go with it. But right 7 now I'm not sure I know where I want to go 8 with it. 9 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: I agree. I just 10 guess it sort of felt like now is a moment 11 where everybody was saying, okay, put your 12 ideas on the table. And knowing that things 13 take a long time, okay, I have a moment. I 14 have to put it on the table. 15 And, yes, I would absolutely want 16 that study to be robust, to be a part of the 17 desk research that we do before we would 18 launch into something like that. 19 MR. WAKSHLAG: I'd suggest it's 20 interesting. We have an opportunity because 21 while that data's being collected by Ball 22 State, you're collecting all of these streams 23 of data. So it's partly just a matter of 24 holding on to it so that we can make the 25 comparison when it's done. 98 1 MR. POLTRACK: Apparently, there 2 are no shortage of people in the 3 entrepreneurial area that need our guidance 4 to pursue that. So it's a very constructive 5 study. But I think it more like part B. 6 There's no reason a part B, you couldn't 7 start part B while we're building part A. 8 MS. BRILL: From my perspective, 9 there are so many people coming to us with, 10 you know, multimedia packages, all sorts of 11 digital extensions on top of our national 12 broadcast cable or syndication buy. And, you 13 know, we don't even have metrics in common 14 for those different platforms. It would be 15 nice to even start with that. 16 MS. SHAGRIN: That's sort of the 17 area that I wanted to focus on or that I'm 18 suggesting that a committee focus on. And 19 while there are some crossover, what my 20 suggestion was was that we do research to 21 delay a cross-media delivery and its 22 effectiveness, understanding the true value 23 of multi-platform advertising. Not 24 necessarily taking the same stream of data 25 and putting it on different video and 99 1 different screens, but actually different 2 media. I heard a lot of this yesterday. I 3 was interested in doing this before 4 yesterday's conference. But I took some 5 notes in terms of what people were saying 6 about more media options results in the need 7 for more measurements and more combinations 8 with greater granularity. 9 Research is needed to determine 10 the best way to measure the delivery and 11 value of multi-platform advertising. So 12 again, I'm talking about multi-platform, not 13 necessarily taking the same video on 14 different screens. How we measure different 15 data sources. And then put them together to 16 your point. We need research to figure out 17 how to put the pieces together. 18 MS. PANTANINI: Are you talking 19 about also within that doing message 20 effectiveness? Because I don't think you can 21 measure the effectiveness of one media 22 portal, if you will, versus another, without 23 really understanding the relative 24 effectiveness of the message as well. 25 MS. SHAGRIN: Well, again, we're 100 1 not going to solve -- it's just a question of 2 right now, many, many advertisers are looking 3 at advertising on Internet, on television, on 4 radio, and trying to determine what the 5 overall effectiveness is and to the point of 6 if a frequency of five is great on 7 television, is the frequency of five that's 8 on television, radio and online or some 9 combination, two of the three, more 10 effective. 11 And I think that the Ball State 12 data is going to be almost getting the 13 results of that. And that committee's 14 analysis becomes very important in defining 15 the type of research that would need to be 16 done, or an RFP to try and figure out how to 17 put these separate measures together. 18 You know, we heard it so many 19 times yesterday and the day before in terms 20 of people talking about how do you put it 21 together and how you measure it and how do 22 you know that it's effective. 23 Interestingly, I talked to the 24 folks from IMMI yesterday. And for the first 25 time learned about the core business that 101 1 they're in, outside of their association with 2 Nielsen, which is exactly what they're doing 3 in a very limited way for a single slice of 4 the advertising world. In terms of looking 5 at research on all media, including previews, 6 because you're looking at movie data, 7 including previews. And then seeing the 8 people who actually saw the movie and all the 9 exposures that they had. 10 Hearing that, after hearing two 11 days of people saying how much we needed it, 12 just to mention what I think is something 13 that we need to learn more about. 14 MR. ZACKON: I'm going to the 15 interrupt because we've been pretty conscious 16 for about three years to ending on time. If 17 people want to permit it, I don't want to 18 stifle it. Can I get a sense? Can we stay 19 an additional 15 minutes if we can do that? 20 If you need to leave, I would ask to do that. 21 Ceril, you may continue. 22 MS. SHAGRIN: I'm finished. 23 MR. ZACKON: So is the sense that 24 we want to begin something now, begin a 25 direct conversation of committee, or would we 102 1 want to wait to see some results from Ball 2 State. 3 MS. SHAGRIN: Well, it's 4 obviously up to the Council. But my thought 5 was if there were people, new people or a 6 combination thereof who were interested in 7 doing this, it would be worth that group 8 beginning to talk about this and think about 9 ways to do it and objectives. And then wait 10 until we actually -- I wouldn't suggest 11 spending any money until we at least saw the 12 Ball State stuff to see where, you know, 13 where these interactions occur. 14 MR. ZACKON: The limited budget 15 put forth isn't all the money. But the 16 attention span of the people on the Council. 17 But, Colleen and Ceril, would you 18 want to work jointly? Is this two separate 19 efforts? 20 MS. FAHEY-RUSH: I think my 21 question is different from hers. 22 MS. SHAGRIN: I do too. I 23 actually do. Because you're talking about 24 various things. And I'm talking about 25 different -- 103 1 MR. KALINE: Property. 2 MS. SHAGRIN: Different messages 3 on different media for the same advertiser. 4 MR. ZACKON: In the welcome 5 letter to our new members we'll invite these 6 people interested in these areas, including 7 Jessica's area which is the communications, 8 and then we'll go back to our current members 9 and twist an additional arm to join these new 10 committees. The committees are initiatives I 11 think is what it is. 12 MR. IVIE: Can I just add one. I 13 missed part of this discussion. I apologize. 14 But I know the Ball State work is an 15 opportunity for us to understand a lot of 16 this information and how people use media and 17 give us insights in this direction. But 18 there's another area that is already out 19 there, you know, data integration and fusion 20 of data that's being practiced. And not only 21 is being practiced, Nielsen's practicing it. 22 And I don't think that area has been fully 23 illuminated, validated, studied nearly well 24 enough. And people are using that data to 25 try these things out. 104 1 MR. ZACKON: That, and solving 2 MRC are two issues. 3 MR. GREEN: Richard, we will get 4 you the notes tomorrow on the whole thing. 5 MR. ZACKON: There was an update 6 on an additional area which was the analog to 7 digital conversion. We have just a couple of 8 minutes there, Mark. 9 MR. GREEN: Right. I'll be 10 really quick on that. At a meeting we 11 promised monthly updates in terms of what was 12 going to be circulated. That's going to get 13 circulated to clients anyway. But I just got 14 a preview of the update that's just about to 15 go out. So I'll send that out probably 16 tomorrow. 17 I was at the funeral services for 18 my laptop earlier this week. So hopefully 19 I'll be able to get it out. 20 MS. BUSLIK: Did Nielsen have any 21 input or know anything about what happened in 22 Orlando last night with 7:59 where they were 23 going to shut off and test? 24 MR. DONATO: We didn't have any 25 input in it. But we were aware of it. I 105 1 haven't gotten any feedback on it. 2 MS. SHAGRIN: You practically 3 have to find how many calls you get. 4 MS. BUSLIK: Yes. If you could 5 do that, maybe add that to your report. 6 MR. DONATO: Definitely. Or any 7 of our homes. 8 MS. BUSLIK: Yes. 9 MS. BRILL: They should do that 10 in less than a major market. 11 MS. BUSLIK: No. I don't think 12 they should. 13 MR. DONATO: Do you know what 14 time? 15 MS. BUSLIK: 7:59. I don't know 16 why. 17 MR. DONATO: Because it's not 8 18 o'clock. A minute before 8:00. 19 MS. BRILL: It's right before 20 primetime starts. And people are getting 21 ready to watch their nighttime lineup maybe. 22 MS. BUSLIK: I don't know the 23 particulars about it. I read about it. And 24 said, oh, my god. 25 MR. DONATO: I forget how many 106 1 and which ones. But there are a few markets 2 doing it. 3 MR. POLTRACK: One is in North 4 Carolina, doing the whole thing, right. 5 MS. BUSLIK: But I thought this 6 was interesting because they were going to 7 send a message out, if you saw this, your 8 TV -- or I dreamt this -- your TV's okay. 9 And if you didn't see this, you're in 10 trouble. 11 MS. SHAGRIN: They're going to 12 say if your screen went black, if you saw 13 programing, if your screen went black, call 14 the stations that are not ready or whatever. 15 MS. BRILL: I think they should 16 do it right before a Super Bowl kickoff. 17 Because just think of the impact. You could 18 say if you can't get this, you know you're 19 not ready. And they have, you know, another 20 15 days to get it together. 21 MS. GALLAGHER: The switchboard 22 would kill them. 23 MR. KALINE: Or 15,000 people 24 would put on something. 25 MR. POLTRACK: That's a good idea 107 1 to do to NBC. 2 MS. BRILL: That's why I made the 3 suggestion. 4 MR. WAKSHLAG: NBC should really 5 focus on this because for us it doesn't 6 matter. 7 MR. ZACKON: Okay, children. 8 MS. SHAGRIN: In the information 9 that Nielsen is providing, will you be 10 providing any information on households that 11 you know because you were out there that were 12 unready a month ago and are ready today? And 13 then so that we can track it. Because either 14 that or when you show the percent on ready, 15 you have to unify the sample so we can tell 16 whether the differences are because of sample 17 changes or a real indication of readiness. 18 The NEB released their study this 19 week that showed how aware people are. And 20 how much that awareness has grown. But what 21 we don't know is they may be aware, but are 22 they taking any action? 23 MR. DONATO: Okay. 24 MR. GREEN: I hear you on that. 25 The report that I'll be sending out probably 108 1 tomorrow, if I can get my machine going, does 2 not have that. I know that because I read it 3 earlier this week. But I'll take that back. 4 MS. SHAGRIN: That's the crucial 5 thing. 6 MR. GREEN: That's clear. 7 MS. SHAGRIN: Are they getting 8 more ready? Are they taking action? Because 9 I think a lot of people are going to wait 10 until two minutes before they lose their 11 signals to decide what they're going to do. 12 MR. GREEN: The report has 13 projected numbers. So it's a little bit 14 different. 15 MR. ZACKON: New business. Just 16 some quick things. 17 MS. BUSLIK: Update? 18 MR. ZACKON: That was the Nielsen 19 update unless there's more. 20 MR. GREEN: That was the Nielsen 21 update. 22 MR. ZACKON: Because you're 23 sending it out. 24 MR. DONATO: What else would you 25 like? Anything else that's important? 109 1 MR. ZACKON: I approached both 2 before. It just didn't work today. And 3 we're out of the time. 4 MR. DONATO: But am I not doing 5 something that you'd like to hear? 6 MS. BUSLIK: No. I just thought 7 maybe you had another new initiative, 8 purchase, sale, something you wanted to talk 9 to us about. 10 MR. DONATO: I am pleased to say 11 that's negative. No. 12 MR. ZACKON: I was approached by 13 Joel Rubinson at the ARF who's chief research 14 officer because they're forming a consortium 15 in a kind of analogous sort of effort to fund 16 research. Wondering whether we would want to 17 fund some of their research. And I brought 18 it to the steering committee. And they kind 19 of shook their heads no. Seeing the same 20 heads here, however, my thinking, being a man 21 of a particular proposal, a particular 22 project, they wanted to come to us, feel they 23 wanted to hear what we had to say. So that 24 was kind of the response. 25 Our September meeting is a longer 110 1 meeting. I'd like some people, because one 2 of the things that came up last year is that 3 we don't have time to discuss kind of bigger 4 picture issues. We continued to focus on the 5 particular research projects. 6 So I would love to have some 7 volunteers from our current members. And 8 maybe some of our new members in a small 9 committee to maybe put a kind of discussion 10 plan together for that. 11 MR. GREEN: Can I make a 12 suggestion there. 13 The other thing that happens in 14 September with all these new people coming 15 onboard and Mike's suggestion about the 16 learning committee, does it kind of make 17 sense to kind of initiate the learning 18 committee before that to do what we've 19 learned to date? 20 MR. ZACKON: That would be smart. 21 Does someone want to step up? 22 MR. GREEN: I'll do that. 23 MR. ZACKON: We'll put out a note 24 and kind of invite people to help lead that 25 discussion. Put that up. 111 1 I want to acknowledge some 2 people. Susan Cuccinello, Ceril Shagrin, Ira 3 Sussman, whose perfect attendance continues 4 after 12 meetings. We had very good 5 attendance. That was the last about that. 6 And the last piece I had, well, I 7 don't. This is all for new business. Any 8 other new business? 9 MR. KALINE: Anyone on the phone 10 have any new business, old business, monkey 11 business? Okay. 12 MR. ZACKON: We're only four 13 minutes late. 14 MR. KALINE: Thank you everybody 15 for making the time. 16 (Whereupon, at 3:00 p.m., the 17 meeting adjourned.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 112 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 STATE OF NEW YORK ) 4 ) ss. 5 COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) 6 7 I, ROBERT M. LEVINE, a Shorthand 8 (Stenotype) Reporter and Notary Public of the 9 State of New York, do hereby certify that 10 foregoing Proceedings, taken at the time and place 11 aforesaid, is a true and correct transcription of 12 my shorthand notes. 13 I further certify that I am neither counsel 14 for nor related to any party to said action, nor 15 in any wise interested in the result or outcome 16 thereof. 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 18 hand this 14th day of August, 2007. 19 _________________________ 20 ROBERT M. LEVINE, CSR 21 22 23 24 25